Clarion Housing Association Limited (201809309)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201809309

Clarion Housing Association Limited

9 December 2020

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about:
1. the landlord’s response to reports of problems with the boiler; and
2. complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident has an assured non-shorthold tenancy with the landlord that started on 29 October 2012. The property is a two-bedroom flat. Under the tenancy agreement the landlord has a responsibility to keep in good working order any water or room heater that it has provided. The resident is responsible for: reporting any repair or defect to the landlord promptly that it is responsible for; and for allowing the landlord and its contractors reasonable access to carry out repairs or other works.
Mechanical and electrical maintenance (including gas and green technology installations) are excluded from the responsive repairs policy. In these cases, services and installations are maintained by specialist teams with specialist contractors. This includes gas and green technology installations.
The landlord has a two-stage formal complaints procedure. No timescales are specified in the policy for either stage.
The landlord’s compensation policy says it will make discretionary compensation payments where any inconvenience has been caused by its actions or failure to act. The policy makes clear that it covers actions by the landlord as well as its contractors. The circumstances in which compensation may be paid include the time taken to resolve a complaint; inconvenience suffered by the household; repeat visits to resolve an outstanding problem and damage to customers’ personal belongings as a direct result of planned, cyclical or improvement work.
The policy also says that compensation payments will be used to offset rent or other arrears.

Summary of events

The landlord did not provide its repair records, as this Service had requested. Therefore, this investigation has relied upon information contained in emails and complaint records as evidence of the action taken. It is not disputed that on 29 May 2018 the boiler at the property stopped working. The landlord turned on the immersion system at the property which gave the resident hot water.
On 26 June 2018 the resident sent an email to the landlord entitled ‘boiler complaint’. She said, among other things, that:
1. the issue of the broken boiler had not been addressed and, despite promises from the landlord that someone would attend the property, no‑one had done so.
2. the immersion system was costing her more to run, which had been confirmed by her energy supplier.
3. The resident asked the landlord to look into matters as soon as possible.
On 20 August 2018 the resident asked the landlord about her complaint of 26 June 2018. She said it was two months since the repair had been reported and, while an engineer had been sent out to service the boiler, he had not been aware that it was not working.
On 28 September 2018 the landlord arranged an appointment for its contractor to attend the property the following month.
On 16 October 2018 the resident contacted the landlord. She said the contractor had attended that day for five hours; however, they had not made any progress and said a hole would have to be cut in the wall to install the compressor. She said she had been left without hot water. The hot water from the immersion system was subsequently restored and temporary heaters provided to the resident.
On 18 October 2019 the landlord noted a full survey of the system would be required to work out if a different heating system would be more appropriate.
This Service wrote to the landlord on 19 October 2018, following contact from the resident, asking it to provide a formal complaint response to her concerns about the boiler repair within 21 days.
On 24 October 2019 the landlord noted the contractor had sufficient information to make a decision on the new boiler (following a visit to the property the previous day) but it could not give a timescale for that. It noted that, if the resident sent in evidence of her increased heating/hot water costs, it would consider compensation.
On 6 November 2019 the contractor gave the landlord the options for a new heating system at the property.
On 31 October 2018, in response to an enquiry, the landlord wrote to the resident’s MP. It is not evident if a copy of that was sent to the resident. In brief, the landlord explained the action it had taken to try to resolve the boiler issues. It offered the resident compensation of £50 for the inconvenience this had caused her and said it would consider her claim for financial loss she was to provide evidence of increased fuel bills. The landlord added that it would contact the resident with the proposed plan to resolve matters.
On 19 November 2018 the resident told the landlord that the contractor had visited on 5 November 2018 and had put a hole in the wall but she had had no further appointment made. She said she had had missed calls from the landlord but when she tried to call back it involved her “going round and round in circles with various departments and left on hold for 20 minutes at a time”. She asked for written confirmation of when her boiler would be replaced.
Following further contact from the resident, this Service wrote again to the landlord on 26 November 2018 asking it to respond to the resident’s concerns about the boiler repair.
In an internal email dated 3 January 2019 the landlord noted that it was awaiting an installation date; however, a new heating system would be installed and that the manufacturer would assist the contractor in doing so.
On 8 January 2019 the landlord confirmed that a contractor would be attending and would be in touch about a date.
Having tried unsuccessfully to reach the resident by phone, on 17 January 2019 the contractor sent the resident a letter with an appointment for them to attend on 25 January 2019 between 8 and 9 am. It noted that if she did not confirm the appointment by Friday 23 January 2019 it would have to be cancelled. The resident did not make contact and the appointment was cancelled. The landlord noted at that time that the parts had not yet been received; these were received by 13 February 2019.
On 8 February 2019 the landlord noted the contractor was having difficulty arranging a new appointment with the resident.
On 11 February 2019 the contractor wrote to the resident asking her to make contact within ten working days or it would close the enquiry.
On 21 March 2019 the landlord telephoned the resident several times in the afternoon but there was no answer. On 26 March 2019 the landlord called the resident in the afternoon; there was no answer. The landlord called an alternative number it held for the resident at those times also and the line was busy.
On 2 April 2019 the resident contacted this Service as repairs to the boiler were still outstanding. We wrote to the landlord two days later asking it to respond to the resident’s complaint as a matter of urgency.
On 25 and 26 April 2019 the landlord telephoned the resident in the morning but there was no answer. The landlord called an alternative number it held for the resident at those times and the line was busy.
On 1 May 2019 the landlord responded to contact from this Service. It gave the following information:
1. the resident’s complaint had been closed in October 2018;
2. the contractor had been unable to contact the resident previously to arrange installation of the new boiler;
3. an appointment had been made for the contractor to attend the property on 15 May 2019 when they would install the new heating system and make good damage caused to a wall from a previous investigation; this work was due to be completed by 16 May 2019.
4. the resident had agreed to send in her fuel bills so the landlord could calculate any financial loss to her.
5. the resident was happy with this progress.
Following a call to the resident on 17 June 2019, the landlord noted that the resident wanted compensation for the following: the higher costs over the winter when she was using an immersion heater; the contractor’s damage to the front door and lino flooring. On 24 June 2019 the landlord noted it would send the resident a damage form to complete. (The landlord told this Service that the resident did not return this form.)
On 25 June 2019 the landlord wrote to the resident following contact from her on 17 June 2019. It said compensation had been calculated at £450 made up of:
1. £100 – time taken to resolve the complaint
2. £100 – inconvenience to the household
3. £100 – failure to follow the process (time taken for quotes to be completed and approved)
4. £100 – repeat visits to resolve an outstanding problem
5. £50 – repairs gone over time (17 October 2018 onwards).
The landlord said that concluded the complaint but asked the resident to contact it if she remained dissatisfied.
At the end of June and on 11 July 2019 the contractor sent a second damage form to the resident. It noted that, without a completed form, it could not book the repairs in. On 11 and 15 July 2019 the landlord called the resident but there was no answer; it also made a call on 12 July 2019 and the line was busy. The landlord called an alternative number it held for the resident at those times and on 17 July 2019 and the line was busy.
On 26 July 2019 the landlord responded to the resident at the final stage of its complaint procedure and apologised for its delay in doing so. It said it had reviewed the compensation and complaint; it made the following points:
1. it had followed its guidelines when awarding discretionary compensation.
2. its position on the complaint remained unchanged; it had engaged with its contractor to resolve the issues with the heat pump system and had since replaced the unit.
3. while the arrangements for appointments could have been better, sufficient attempts had been made and this was an area which required all parties’ input for a smooth outcome.
4. it would ensure it was fully engaged in managing the contractor for any of the repairs to make good to the property.
5. it would ensure that the lessons learned were used to improve the management of the contractor.
6. it apologised for any inconvenience or frustration the resident had experienced.
The landlord signposted the resident to the Ombudsman.
The resident approached the Ombudsman in January 2020. She said she did not feel the compensation offered was appropriate for the twelve months she was without a boiler or for the additional fuel charges she had incurred. She said the landlord had not compensated for the damage caused by the contractor.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to reports of problems with the boiler
The evidence shows that the failure of the boiler in late May 2018 was not rectified until a new heating system was installed in mid-May 2019. Within that time the evidence shows that there were avoidable periods of delay by the landlord.
When the resident first reported the broken boiler at the end of May 2018 the landlord took appropriate action by ensuing that the emergency immersion system was working which enabled the resident and her family to have hot water (paragraph 8).
However, there were lengthy periods when no action was being taken by the landlord to resolve the boiler issue:
1. from the end of June 2018 until the end of September 2018 when an appointment was made for a contractor to attend the property (paragraph 10). At that time, the evidence shows that that the contractor realised that it might not be possible to fix the boiler and a full survey was undertaken later that month to establish what options were available for replacing it (paragraph 14).
2. from October 2018 to January 2019. The evidence is not clear on when a decision was taken on next steps for the replacement boiler but, following further contact from this Service, on 3 January 2019 a way forward was noted and an installation date to be arranged (paragraph 20). An appointment was made for 25 January 2019; however, that was cancelled as the resident did not confirm it. This Service notes it would not have gone ahead anyway as parts had not been received (paragraph 21).
These delays were not reasonable because the landlord was aware that the resident was using an emergency immersion system that was not a long-term solution and was, by the resident’s accounts, more costly. This has not been disputed by the landlord.
Communication with the resident throughout those periods was also not appropriate because her emails trying to find out what action was being taken to resolve matters – whether by making a complaint or otherwise – went unanswered (paragraphs 8, 9 and 17). The landlord did not act reasonably in ignoring this correspondence which evidently caused the resident further inconvenience and frustration.
By mid-February 2019 the contractor was ready to install the new heating system. At this point, the evidence suggests that the resident did not respond to the contractor’s request for an appointment for installation. This Service has not been provided with full records of the action taken by the contractor at this time. However, the letter of 11 February 2019 in which it said it would consider the enquiry closed, if the resident did not respond (paragraph 23), was not appropriate. This is because the evidence suggests this was the first letter arranging an appointment since all parts had been received and because, under the tenancy agreement, the landlord has an obligation to ensure that room and water heaters are kept in good working order.
The landlord tried to contact the resident sporadically – at the end of March and April 2019 – by telephone only (paragraphs 24 to 26). It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have tried another form of correspondence with the resident, given its telephone calls to her were not effective. Following further intervention by this Service, an appointment was made for the installation which was completed in mid-May 2019.
In this case there has been avoidable delay of some six months when resolving the boiler problems (paragraph 35). The landlord was not fully responsible for delays after mid-February 2019; however, its poor communication with the resident likely contributed to the delay after that point.
As part of its complaint handling, the landlord offered the resident compensation of £350 for the detriment caused to her by its delay in resolving the boiler problem (paragraph 29). In relation to the failures identified, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the complainant’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies.
It is evident that the delays to resolve the boiler problems and poor communication caused inconvenience and frustration to the resident. The sum of £350 offered by the landlord works out at slightly over £50 a month; this Service considers that is proportionate redress for the detriment caused to the resident by the landlord’s service failures. This amount is also within the range of amounts that the Ombudsman can order when he has found evidence of considerable service failure or maladministration. This includes cases where there has been a failure over a considerable amount of time to address repairs.
The landlord’s decision to apply any compensation payment as a credit to the rent account where there are rent arrears is appropriate as it is in line with its compensation policy (paragraph 6). It is also reasonable for the landlord to do so in order to protect its income.
The landlord offered to consider if the resident’s heating bills had increased during the period she used the immersion heater (paragraph 14 and 27). It is not clear if the resident has provided evidence to enable the landlord to do so.
In June and July 2019 the landlord sent three damage forms to the resident to complete so that it could undertake repairs to the door and flooring (paragraphs 28 and 30). The evidence suggests that the form was not returned. The landlord’s compensation policy makes it clear that it covers damage to customers’ personal belongings by itself or its contractor (paragraph 5) and makes no reference to a damage form. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have acted on the resident’s reports of damage by either visiting her to inspect the damage or asking for photos of it in order to reach a decision about compensation. Its failure to take responsibility for the alleged damage caused by the contractor was a service failure.
This Service considers the landlord put right the majority of the complaint with its offer of compensation; however, its failure to take steps to deal with the damage caused by the contract was a service failure.

Complaint handling

The resident first approached the landlord with a formal complaint on 26 June 2018 (paragraph 8). Despite further communication asking the landlord to deal with her complaint in August 2018 and intervention from this Service in October and November 2018 and April 2019 (paragraphs 13, 18 and 25) and the resident’s MP (paragraph 16) a formal complaint response was not issued to the resident until 25 June 2019, some twelve months later (paragraph 29).
In its correspondence with this Service, the landlord said it considered the complaint closed in October 2018. However, the evidence suggests that the response at that time was answering an enquiry from the resident’s MP rather than a formal complaint response to the resident herself. The landlord did not act appropriately here; while it does not give timescales for responses in its complaints policy (paragraph 4), the time taken to issue a formal complaint response to the resident was excessive. It meant that the landlord failed to resolve matters at the earliest opportunity and therefore missed out on the opportunity to improve the tenant/landlord relationship which the evidence suggests had soured as the delay in resolving the boiler problems continued.
This inappropriate complaint handling evidently caused the resident inconvenience and distress because she had to involve third parties to try to progress matters. The landlord offered compensation of £100 for poor complaint handling. This is not proportionate to the detriment caused to the resident because she had to involve third parties to try to resolve matters and, in the case of this Service, had to do so repeatedly. I have made an order, below, for compensation relating to complaint handling which is in line with our guidance on remedies.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its response to report of problems with the boiler.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.

Reasons

While the resident was without a boiler for almost a year, she had hot water through the immersion system and temporary heaters. Nonetheless there was delay by the landlord in taking action to evaluate whether or not a new boiler was required. There was also poor communication with the resident. The compensation offered by the landlord was proportionate to the detriment experienced by the resident for the identified delays and communication failures. However, the landlord did not deal appropriately with the resident’s request for compensation for damage caused to the property during the new boiler installation.
The landlord dd not issue a formal complaint response for a year after the initial complaint was made. Such a delay was not appropriate and excessive. The compensation offered by the landlord for this failing was not proportionate to the detriment experienced by the resident.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord shall, within the next four weeks, take the following action:
pay the resident the sum of £300 for the detriment caused to her by the complaint handling failures identified in this report (minus any sum previously paid).
visit the property to inspect the damage caused to the door and flooring by the installation of the new boiler and take steps to put that right. Should the resident have repaired these issues herself, the landlord should ask her to provide receipts so that it might consider reimbursement in line with its compensation policy.
review its complaint policy and procedures to see whether staff member training is needed to ensure that its policy is followed.
review its complaint handling procedures in light of the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code with particular reference to its lack of timescales when providing complaint responses.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord take the following action:
pay the resident the sum previously offered of £350 for the detriment caused by the new boiler installation (minus any sum previously paid).
write to the resident asking if she would like to provide evidence of her increased heating bills for the period from 29 May 2018 to 16 May 2019 while she was without a boiler so that it can look into whether or not compensation is appropriate.